United States v. Villamonte-Marquez
77 L. Ed. 2d 22, 462 U.S. 579, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 68 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment is not violated when customs officials, acting under statutory authority, stop and board a vessel on waters with ready access to the open sea for the purpose of inspecting documents, even without a warrant or any suspicion of wrongdoing.
Facts:
- Customs officers were patrolling the Calcasieu River Ship Channel, a waterway in Louisiana that provides access to the Gulf of Mexico.
- They observed a 40-foot sailboat, the 'Henry Morgan II', anchored in the channel.
- After a large freighter's wake caused the sailboat to rock violently, the officers approached to check on the crew's welfare.
- The man on deck, Hamparian, gave an unresponsive shrug when asked if he and the crew were okay.
- Customs Officer Wilkins and a state police officer then boarded the 'Henry Morgan II' to request and inspect the vessel's documentation.
- While examining the document provided by Hamparian, Officer Wilkins smelled what he believed to be burning marijuana.
- Looking through an open hatch, Wilkins saw burlap-wrapped bales, which were later confirmed to be marijuana, with Villamonte-Marquez on top of them.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents Villamonte-Marquez and Hamparian were convicted in the U.S. District Court on federal charges including conspiracy to import and possess marijuana.
- Respondents appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the convictions, holding that the boarding of the vessel was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted without a reasonable suspicion of a law violation.
- The United States (the Government), as the petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures prevent customs officials from boarding a vessel located in waters with ready access to the open sea to inspect its documents, where the boarding is conducted without any particularized suspicion of a violation of the law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No, the Fourth Amendment is not violated. The suspicionless boarding of a vessel in waters with ready access to the open sea for a document check is a reasonable seizure. The Court applied a balancing test, weighing the governmental interest against the intrusion on individual liberty. It found that the government's interests in regulating maritime commerce and interdicting smuggling are substantial, particularly given the historical precedent of a similar statute enacted by the First Congress. The Court distinguished this situation from automobile stops on land, reasoning that fixed checkpoints are impractical on waterways and that vessels, unlike cars, lack external markers like license plates to verify compliance with the law. Therefore, the modest intrusion of a brief boarding to inspect documents is justified by the significant governmental interests at stake.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the Fourth Amendment is violated. This decision approves a completely random seizure by a roving patrol without any limits on official discretion, which is flatly contrary to precedents like Delaware v. Prouse that require at least reasonable suspicion for such stops. The intrusion of boarding a vessel, which often serves as a private dwelling, is significantly more severe than briefly stopping a car. The government failed to show that less intrusive alternatives, such as fixed checkpoints in channels or requiring boats to display visible registration markers, are unworkable. The ruling grants law enforcement 'standardless and unconstrained discretion,' the very evil the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant 'vessel exception' to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and suspicion requirements, distinguishing maritime stops from automobile stops. It solidifies the government's authority to conduct random, suspicionless vessel boardings for regulatory purposes, thereby lowering the expectation of privacy for individuals on boats in waters with access to the sea. The ruling expands the power of customs and Coast Guard officials and creates a separate, more lenient standard for seizures on water compared to land. Future legal challenges will likely focus on defining the geographic limits of 'waters with ready access to the open sea' and the permissible scope of a document inspection versus an impermissible exploratory search.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Villamonte-Marquez